3 Removed misuse of code markup; added link to word that did not appear to be a word; corrected grammar
source | link

Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Editors have learned that formation into "gangs" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely "revert favour" once he has reached the limit of his daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything.

Summarized, Wikipedia suffers from cabal-like behaviors, in which controlling narrative is a relatively straightforward process. In short:

  1. Choose a topic to control.
  2. Find or hire like-minded users, and coordinate with them via a private network for immediate coordination.
  3. As objections to edits typically filter in one by one, coordinating with the rest of the cabal, one can claim Wp:Consensus even if the aggregate is actually opposed to this.
  4. Appoint cabal users as administrators, to assist with "problem users". Abusing this privilege is a relatively safe process as the essay also states:

Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is only controlled weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysopdesysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed.


Anyway; I was wondering isIs it the case that SE has or actively does suffer from similar issues? Say for example, would it profit Foo IncorporatedFoo Incorporated, a competitor to The Bar FoundationThe Bar Foundation, to hire a few people to actively monitor their respected tags, looking to harass Anti-FooAnti-Foo contributors, questions, answers, and tags while promoting all things Pro-BarPro-Bar?

On the various SE's, I have never personally recognized any behavior that would pass for shilling, but maybe I am not looking hard enough.

If it largely has not been an issue, to what can we attribute this success to? If it has, where and why does it exist?

Thanks.

Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Editors have learned that formation into "gangs" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely "revert favour" once he has reached the limit of his daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything.

Summarized, Wikipedia suffers from cabal-like behaviors, in which controlling narrative is a relatively straightforward process. In short:

  1. Choose a topic to control.
  2. Find or hire like-minded users, and coordinate with them via a private network for immediate coordination.
  3. As objections to edits typically filter in one by one, coordinating with the rest of the cabal, one can claim Wp:Consensus even if the aggregate is actually opposed to this.
  4. Appoint cabal users as administrators, to assist with "problem users". Abusing this privilege is a relatively safe process as the essay also states:

Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is only controlled weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed.


Anyway; I was wondering is SE has or actively does suffer from similar issues? Say for example, would it profit Foo Incorporated a competitor to The Bar Foundation, to hire a few people to actively monitor their respected tags, looking to harass Anti-Foo contributors, questions, answers, and tags while promoting all things Pro-Bar?

On the various SE's, I have never personally recognized any behavior that would pass for shilling, but maybe I am not looking hard enough.

If it largely has not been an issue, to what can we attribute this success to? If it has, where and why does it exist?

Thanks.

Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Editors have learned that formation into "gangs" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely "revert favour" once he has reached the limit of his daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything.

Summarized, Wikipedia suffers from cabal-like behaviors, in which controlling narrative is a relatively straightforward process. In short:

  1. Choose a topic to control.
  2. Find or hire like-minded users, and coordinate with them via a private network for immediate coordination.
  3. As objections to edits typically filter in one by one, coordinating with the rest of the cabal, one can claim Wp:Consensus even if the aggregate is actually opposed to this.
  4. Appoint cabal users as administrators, to assist with "problem users". Abusing this privilege is a relatively safe process as the essay also states:

Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is only controlled weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed.


Is it the case that SE has or actively does suffer from similar issues? Say for example, would it profit Foo Incorporated, a competitor to The Bar Foundation, to hire a few people to actively monitor their respected tags, looking to harass Anti-Foo contributors, questions, answers, and tags while promoting all things Pro-Bar?

On the various SE's, I have never personally recognized any behavior that would pass for shilling, but maybe I am not looking hard enough.

If it largely has not been an issue, to what can we attribute this success to? If it has, where and why does it exist?

2 deleted 36 characters in body
source | link

Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Editors have learned that formation into "gangs" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely "revert favour" once he has reached the limit of his daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything.

The way I summarize itSummarized, is that Wikipedia suffers from cabal-like behaviors, in which controlling narrative is a relatively straightforward process. In short:

  1. Choose youra topic to control.
  2. Find aor hire like minded user-minded users, or put a few people on payroll to actively monitor topicsand coordinate with you.
  3. Get their phone number to assistthem via a private network for immediate coordination.
  4. As objections to edits typically filter in one by one, as long as two people oppose itcoordinating with the rest of the cabal, youone can claim Wp:Consensus even if the aggregate is actually opposed to youthis.
  5. Elect an administratorAppoint cabal users as administrators, to assist with "problem users". Abusing this privilege is a relatively safe process as the essay also states:

Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is only controlled weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed.


Anyway; I was wondering is SE has or actively does suffer from similar issues? Say for example, would it profit Foo Incorporated a competitor to The Bar Foundation, to hire a few people to actively monitor their respected tags, looking to harass Anti-Foo contributors, questions, answers, and tags while promoting all things Pro-Bar?

On the various SE's, I have never personally recognized any behavior that would pass for shilling, but maybe I am not looking hard enough.

If it largely has not been an issue, to what can we attribute this success to? If it has, where and why does it exist?

Thanks.

Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Editors have learned that formation into "gangs" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely "revert favour" once he has reached the limit of his daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything.

The way I summarize it, is that Wikipedia suffers from cabal-like behaviors, in which controlling narrative is a relatively straightforward process.

  1. Choose your topic to control.
  2. Find a like minded user, or put a few people on payroll to actively monitor topics with you.
  3. Get their phone number to assist immediate coordination.
  4. As objections to edits typically filter in one by one, as long as two people oppose it, you can claim Wp:Consensus even if the aggregate is actually opposed to you.
  5. Elect an administrator to assist with "problem users". Abusing this privilege is a relatively safe process as the essay also states:

Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is only controlled weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed.


Anyway; I was wondering is SE has or actively does suffer from similar issues? Say for example, would it profit Foo Incorporated a competitor to The Bar Foundation, to hire a few people to actively monitor their respected tags, looking to harass Anti-Foo contributors, questions, answers, and tags while promoting all things Pro-Bar?

On the various SE's, I have never personally recognized any behavior that would pass for shilling, but maybe I am not looking hard enough.

If it largely has not been an issue, to what can we attribute this success to? If it has, where and why does it exist?

Thanks.

Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Editors have learned that formation into "gangs" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely "revert favour" once he has reached the limit of his daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything.

Summarized, Wikipedia suffers from cabal-like behaviors, in which controlling narrative is a relatively straightforward process. In short:

  1. Choose a topic to control.
  2. Find or hire like-minded users, and coordinate with them via a private network for immediate coordination.
  3. As objections to edits typically filter in one by one, coordinating with the rest of the cabal, one can claim Wp:Consensus even if the aggregate is actually opposed to this.
  4. Appoint cabal users as administrators, to assist with "problem users". Abusing this privilege is a relatively safe process as the essay also states:

Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is only controlled weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed.


Anyway; I was wondering is SE has or actively does suffer from similar issues? Say for example, would it profit Foo Incorporated a competitor to The Bar Foundation, to hire a few people to actively monitor their respected tags, looking to harass Anti-Foo contributors, questions, answers, and tags while promoting all things Pro-Bar?

On the various SE's, I have never personally recognized any behavior that would pass for shilling, but maybe I am not looking hard enough.

If it largely has not been an issue, to what can we attribute this success to? If it has, where and why does it exist?

Thanks.

1
source | link

Has or does SE suffer from shills or cabals of special interest groups looking to peddle influence or control narrative?

Excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Editors have learned that formation into "gangs" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely "revert favour" once he has reached the limit of his daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything.

The way I summarize it, is that Wikipedia suffers from cabal-like behaviors, in which controlling narrative is a relatively straightforward process.

  1. Choose your topic to control.
  2. Find a like minded user, or put a few people on payroll to actively monitor topics with you.
  3. Get their phone number to assist immediate coordination.
  4. As objections to edits typically filter in one by one, as long as two people oppose it, you can claim Wp:Consensus even if the aggregate is actually opposed to you.
  5. Elect an administrator to assist with "problem users". Abusing this privilege is a relatively safe process as the essay also states:

Wikipedia administrator vandalism itself is only controlled weakly, and there's insufficient power to desysop a popular tyrant. Only the most abusive administrators – perhaps 2% total – have their statuses removed.


Anyway; I was wondering is SE has or actively does suffer from similar issues? Say for example, would it profit Foo Incorporated a competitor to The Bar Foundation, to hire a few people to actively monitor their respected tags, looking to harass Anti-Foo contributors, questions, answers, and tags while promoting all things Pro-Bar?

On the various SE's, I have never personally recognized any behavior that would pass for shilling, but maybe I am not looking hard enough.

If it largely has not been an issue, to what can we attribute this success to? If it has, where and why does it exist?

Thanks.